Siberian Worms Frozen In Permafrost For Up To 42,000 Years Defrosted Back To Life

Stephan:  This is one of the most extraordinary science stories I have seen in a long time. Just amazing.

 

On the image is the overall view of a female nematode. Two such creatures were successfully defrosted from 32,000 and 41,700-year-old permafrost, and have already exhibited signs of life.
Credit: Shatilovich, Tchesunov, et. al/Doklady Biological Sciences

In a major scientific breakthrough, worms that have been trapped in permafrost for tens of thousands of years have come back to life, and are said to be moving and eating.

They are now considered the world’s oldest living animals. (emphasis added)

Signs Of Life

Prehistoric nematodes are said to be showing signs of life and eating after researchers from various institutions collaborated and defrosted the permafrost they were trapped in for tens of thousands of years. Researchers evidently analyzed over 300 samples of permafrost from different origins and ages, and found two that were the most viable samples that contained nematodes, or more commonly known as roundworms.

Both samples came from the cold Yakutia region in Russia, but one came from a permafrost wall in a squirrel burrow, while the other was found in permafrost near the Alazeya river way back in […]

Read the Full Article

2 Comments

Fear and Anxiety Drive Conservatives’ Political Attitudes

Stephan:  I had two of my rightwing readers write today chastizing me for the piece I ran the yesterday on the psychophysiology of right-wing voters. As soon as I read criticism such as this, and it begins by talking about left-wing whatever, I know I am reading someone's fears and prejudices having little or nothing to do with actual research. It prompts me, once again, to say the following:  I have an anthropological interest in political parties, but not a partisan one. What I care about and cover is social outcome data, and the trends it creates. My bias is: Does this trend foster wellbeing or not? At the moment I loathe the Republican Party because almost every policy it espouses degrades individual and social wellbeing. Indeed I don't think it is possible to be a Republican and an ethical person as the Trumplican version of the party now exists. I make no secret of that.  And if the Democrats behaved in the same manner I would say the same of them. They have their own corporatist corruption issues, but they don't kidnap immigrant children from their parents, or destroy environmental protections, and degrade public education. What I think most of the media, and most of the population don't understand is that partisanship of whichever stripe has a psychophysical profile. Here is a fact-based report on this, from a psychology journal and, also, a small sampling of the recent research literature should you wish to dig a little deeper.

The social neuroscience of race-based and status-based prejudice.

Mattan BD, Wei KY, Cloutier J, Kubota JT.

Curr Opin Psychol. 2018 Apr 19;24:27-34. doi: 10.1016/j.copsyc.2018.04.010. [Epub ahead of print] Review.

PMID: 29730465

Neuropolitics: Twenty years later.

Schreiber D.

Politics Life Sci. 2017 Fall;36(2):114-131. doi: 10.1017/pls.2017.25.

PMID: 29355105

In search of the moral-psychological and neuroevolutionary basis of political partisanship.

Haase VG, Starling-Alves I.

Dement Neuropsychol. 2017 Jan-Mar;11(1):15-23. doi: 10.1590/1980-57642016dn11-010004. Review.

PMID: 29213489

Credit: Lightspring/Shutterstock

Peer-reviewed research shows that conservatives are more sensitive to threat. While this threat-bias can distort reality, fuel irrational fears, and make one more vulnerable to fear-mongering politicians, it could also promote hypervigilance, perhaps making one better prepared to handle an immediate threat.

1. Conservatives tend to focus on the negative

In a 2012 study, liberal and conservative participants were shown collages of both negative and positive images on a computer screen while their eye movements were recorded. While liberals were quicker to look at pleasant images, like a happy child or a cute bunny rabbit, conservatives tended to behave oppositely. They’d first inspect threatening and disturbing pictures—things like car wrecks, spiders on faces, and open wounds crawling with maggots—and would also tend to dwell on them for longer. This is what psychologists call a “negativity bias”. If you think about it, this makes a lot of sense. When attention is biased toward the negative, the result is an overly threat-conscious appraisal of one’s surroundings. Essentially, to many […]

Read the Full Article

No Comments

A Sociologist Examines the “White Fragility” That Prevents White Americans from Confronting Racism

Stephan:  Almost every day now I am seeing bizarre stories of White people attacking people of color in grocery stores, parking lots, and on the street as they are walking by, just random racism and violence. It is my belief that Trump's blatant decades-long racism and his multitude of racist comments are giving White morons in the population permission for this sort of behavior. Here is an excellent essay on the psychology of this trend.

Credit: Christopher Anderson / Magnum

In more than twenty years of running diversity-training and cultural-competency workshops for American companies, the academic and educator Robin DiAngelo has noticed that white people are sensationally, histrionically bad at discussing racism. Like waves on sand, their reactions form predictable patterns: they will insist that they “were taught to treat everyone the same,” that they are “color-blind,” that they “don’t care if you are pink, purple, or polka-dotted.” They will point to friends and family members of color, a history of civil-rights activism, or a more “salient” issue, such as class or gender. They will shout and bluster. They will cry. In 2011, DiAngelo coined the term “white fragility” to describe the disbelieving defensiveness that white people exhibit when their ideas about race and racism are challenged—and particularly when they feel implicated in white supremacy. Why, she wondered, did her feedback prompt such resistance, as if the mention of racism were more offensive than the fact or practice of it?

In a new book, “

Read the Full Article

No Comments

Plan to Weaken Car Emissions Rules Could Reopen Key Climate Case

Stephan:  Car emissions. Is it possible that anyone doesn't understand the role of car emissions in air pollution?  Apparently, the answer is yes; Donald Trump and his EPA to be specific. These people will literally kill you to make it possible for their corporate lords to squeeze out some extra bucks of profit. Every other developed nation in the world is trying to reduce and ultimately eliminate car emissions, but not in the USA. Can you smell the ozone America? Do you think your children and their children will thank you?

Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh.
Credit: Tom Williams/ Getty

The Trump administration’s plan to weaken federal rules on vehicle emissions could lead to the Supreme Court re-examining a major climate case that defined carbon dioxide as an air pollutant.

EPA and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration are expected to launch a rewrite of the tailpipe rules as soon as this week. It’s expected to freeze fuel economy targets at 2020 levels through 2026, allowing automakers to build cars that travel about 30 miles per gallon of gas rather than 36 miles.

The administration is also expected to target a legal waiver that lets California set tougher standards to address historical smog problems. EPA might argue that the state’s authority over air pollution only extends to local pollutants, not global greenhouse gas emissions. Or the agency could seek to revoke the waiver entirely. That could kill the state’s effort to address climate change through a program requiring automakers to sell “zero emission” vehicles.

It’s likely to ignite a legal battle between EPA and California, […]

Read the Full Article

1 Comment

A Swing-State Election Vendor Repeatedly Denied Being Hacked By Russians. The New Mueller Indictment Says Otherwise

Stephan:  It has always been my view that when it became obvious that a national enemy had affected the outcome of the election we should have canceled the 2016 election, fixed the vulnerabilities of our electoral system and held a second election with the same candidates. I don't think anyone who actually looks at the data can have any doubt that one way or another the Republican Party in league with the NRA, and the Russian government skewed the election. Isn't it interesting that Trump fired the staff person responsible for election cyber-security and has not replaced him, nor has the Republican-controlled Congress allocated the money such a protection effort would require, nor made it a priority. Here is the latest on this.

Credit: Alan Diaz/AP

Shortly before  the 2016 presidential election, Russian military hackers tried to trick employees of VR Systems, a Florida-based e-voting vendor, into downloading computer-hijacking malware, according to a top-secret NSA report published by The Intercept last year. As recently as last month, the company denied any breach had occurred. But, in fact, the hacking attempt worked, judging from an indictment of 12 Russian military officers prepared by Special Counsel Robert Mueller and handed down by a grand jury today.

Although the indictment doesn’t mention VR by name, referring to the polling and registration software maker as “U.S. Vendor” or “Vendor 1,” the facts laid out in the indictment line up with what was previously know about the 2016 spear-phishing campaign against the company. The indictment alleges that “in or around August 2016, [Russian military officer] KOVALEV and his co-conspirators hacked into the computers of a U.S. vendor (“Vendor 1″) that supplied software used to verify voter registration information for the 2016 U.S. elections.”

Compare that to a section describing VR Systems from […]

Read the Full Article

No Comments